Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Vol 34.2 (2009): 219-239 2009 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/0309089209356413 http://JSOT.sagepub.com

Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context: How Far Off Was Paul?

DEBBIE HUNN
Turpin Library, Dallas Theological Seminary, 3909 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, TX 75204, USA

Abstract This essay examines Hab. 2.4b in its context, asking five questions related to Paul's exe gesis, namely: What is 10? Whose H D I Q K is at issue? When will the righteous live? Who are the righteous? And are they righteous by faith, or do they live by faith? Although scholars have changed their reading of Paul over time, they have left Habakkuk almost untouched. And yet, an examination of his prophecy finds Habakkuk, before Paul, to include both Jew and Gentile among the righteous and to assert that life comes to the righteous by their faith. Keywords: Habakkuk, Paul,righteous,justification, faith, eternal life, eschaton, Gentiles.

Introduction 'Hab. 2.4 is the crucial Old Testament text for Paul'. 1 Paul's use of Hab. 2.4b'but the righteous shall live by his faith' (RSV)in Rom. 1.17 and

1. J. Christiaan Beker, 'Echoes and Intertextuality', in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 64-69 (68, emphasis in original).

220

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

Gal. 3.11 continues to stimulate research, and scholars in general find Paul either to distort the verse or to extend its application. Because of space limitations, this essay will not examine New Testament passages. Rather, it will return to the Hebrew of Hab. 2.4b ( !} ) and to the context of Habakkuk to ask five questions related to Paul's exegesis, namely: What is ? Whose 310 is at issue? When will the righteous live? Who are the righteous? And are they righteous by faith, or do they live by faith? Answering these questions will lay the foundation for answering the larger question: How far off was Paul? 'His/Its' in Habakkuk 2.4b: Whose 310 Is in Question? The MT adds the masculine singular suffix 1 to IDION to indicate 'his' or 'its' faith/fulness. In the immediate context scholars find three possible referents: the righteous one in v. 4, the vision in v. 3, or the Lord in v. 2. These views appear to exhaust the reasonable possibilities in 2.1-4, but the three possible meanings of IDDIofcClthe faith/fulness of the righteous, the faithfulness of the vision, and the faithfulness of Godare not entirely independent. The faithfulness of the vision depends upon the faithfulness of God who gave it, and the faithfulness of God and of the vision imply that people should trust in them. Not only are the ideas interrelated, but each is explicit in Habakkuk. The Lord tells Habakkuk that he will not believe what he (the Lord) is about to do (1.5), but in the end Habakkuk expresses great faith in God's coming salvation (3.17-19). In 2.3, God states that the vision he promises will certainly come to pass, and ch. 3 describes the unstoppable coming of the Lord himself to defend his people and vanquish their enemies. The LXX gives rise to the view that Hab. 2.4b speaks of God's faithfulness. Because it translates as TTOTECOS , where refers to God as the speaker,2 Francis Andersen argues that the LXX resolves the ambiguity of both the noun and its suffix in the direction of

2. William Brownlee says that in 1 QpHab waw and yod are ' seldom distinguishable ' and therefore create the confusion between 'his' and 'my' in some translations. Cf. William H. Brownlee, 'The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 31925 (324). See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 'Habakkuk 2:3-4 and the New Testament', in Maurice Carrez, Joseph Dor, and Pierre Grelot (eds.), De la Trah au Messie: tudes d'Exgse et d'Hermneutique Bibliques Offertes Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 Annes d'Enseignement l'Institut Catholique de Paris, Octobre 1979 (Paris: Descle, 1981), pp. 447-55 (449).

HUNN Habakkuk 2 Ab in its Context

221

God.3 Andersen supports his choice with theological observations such as, 'The guarantee of life for the righteous is grounded in the reliability of God'.4 Certainly the reliability of the vision and the faith of the righteous in God both look to the faithfulness of God, but IHDIQ^D should not be taken as 'by God's faithfulness' simply because it is foundational. The prophet will still call people to build on the foundation. The Achilles' heel of this view is the MT.5 The Lord, as speaker, did at times refer to himself with a third person pronoun; but when he did so, he began with a noun such as 'the Lord' to make the antecedent clear (e.g. Exod. 9.5; Num. 8.11-13; Isa. 3.16-18; 7.10-11; Jer. 2.2-3). But when God says in Hab. 2.4, 'The righteous will live by his (or its) faith/fulness', he gives no hint that 'the Lord' is the antecedent for the possessive pronoun. Andersen recognizes this problem and states that '[t]his difficulty vanishes if God is continuing to affirm the reliability of his revealed plan, along the lines already present in v. 3 ' .6 The difficulty, however, is not conceptual but grammatical. Although the concepts are inseparableGod is reliable if and only if he keeps his wordsuch a line of reasoning does not hold for the grammatical antecedent of a
3. Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 211. See Wilber Wallis and William Ward for a similar view: Wilber B. Wallis, 'Translation of Romans 1:17: A Basic Motif in Paulinism', JETS 16 (1973), pp. 17-23 (20); William Hayes Ward, 'Habakkuk', in John Merlin Powis Smith, William Hayes Ward, Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), p. 13. Albrecht Oepke (Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater [ed. Joachim Rohde; THKNT, 9; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 5th edn, 1984], p. 106), however, thinks that the translators of the LXX wrote their own theology into the verse and that Paul understood it according to the LXX. Because the faithfulness of the vision depends upon the faithfulness of God, some advocates of the view that 1 signifies the vision see little difference between their view and Andersen's; see, for example, Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (VTSup, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 59; Mark A. Seifrid, 'Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20', in D.A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism (WUNT, 181; 2 vols.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), II, pp. 105-45 (122 n. 18). 4. Andersen, Habakkuk, p. 211. 5. Brownlee cites other versions and commentaries that follow the MT at this point. Cf. William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBLMS, 11; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959), pp. 44-45, and The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (SBLMS, 24; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), p. 126. 6. Andersen, Habakkuk, p. 211.

222

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

pronoun. In other words, 1 as a suffix will not refer both to a vision and to the Lord who gave it: it has a single antecedent, and 'God' is not among the options. A number of scholars understand 1 in 2.4b to refer to the vision (]1), also masculine singular, in 2.2-3. Rikki Watts suggests that 31 (faith/fulness) in 2.4 echoes 1 ('you will believe') in 1.5 and points out that it was Yahweh's word that Habakkuk would not believe. He adds further that if we can assume that the righteous person is by definition one who believes, then 2.4b would border on the tautologous when it makes the issue the faith or faithfulness of the righteous. Instead Hab. 2.4b points to the fidelity of the vision.7 Watts's observation in 1.5, however, speaks more for the view that H31QK means 'faith' as opposed to 'faithfulness' than for the view that 1 in 2.4b refers to the vision because 1 speaks of Habakkuk's belief in God's word, not the dependability ofthat word. And whether or not Habakkuk or his readers define the righteous person as one who believes, Habakkuk's concern was that people were dying (e.g. 1.17), and the Lord tells him how they will escape death.8 Mark Seifrid also takes 1 in Hab. 2.4b to refer to the vision. He observes that such a rendering would explain the LXX reading 'by God's faithfulness' and would correspond to Heb. 10.38, which speaks of the Coming One.9 However, in the LXX could be rendered 'by my [God's] faithfulness' or 'by faith in me [God]' or 'by faithfulness to me [God]' and thus support any of the three views. J. Gerald Janzen wrote a more detailed defense of the vision as the antecedent of 1. Janzen emends 1 ? ('still, yet') in Hab. 2.4 to read 1 ('witness') since " 1 1 7 occurs in six proverbs (Prov. 6.19; 12.17; 14.5, 25; and 19.5, 9), each of which includes at least two words from the set of words found also in Hab. 2.2-4: ('blow'), 1 ('lie'), riDIK/hA ('faith[fulness]/truth'). Because the six proverbs all concern the credibility of a witness, Janzen argues that , m S, DTD, and nDIK/FlK

7. Rikki E. Watts, ' "For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel": Romans 1:16-17 and Habakkuk 2:4', in Sven Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 3-25 (13). Haak, Habakkuk, p. 59, takes the 1 in 2.4b also to refer to the fidelity of the vision, but he does not offer evidence for his position. 8. Watts assumes here that H connects with rather than with , and I answer him on his own terms. 9. Seifrid, 'Unrighteous by Faith', p. 112 and n. 18.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

223

'constitute a fairly tight "semantic world" or "field of meaning'". 10 He follows this with an analysis of the usage of the word set and of the context of Habakkuk. Then, in light of the collocation of the four terms in the context of a witness in the six proverbs, he concludes that the same four terms in Hab. 2.2-4, which include , must also all refer to the witness, that is, the vision in 2.3.11 Aside from the problem of having to emend to to complete the set of four words, 310, the word in question, occurs in just two of the proverbs, Prov. 12.17 and 14.5. Therefore, there are two proverbs, not six, that tie 31 to and to ma and 3TD in Hab. 2.2-4; and in one of the two proverbs (12.17), HDIftK means 'truth' rather than 'faithful ness', as Janzen implicitly acknowledges. This is insufficient evidence to support his claim that H D 1 Q K unambiguously refers to the vision in Hab. 2.4. Most scholars understand 1 in Hab. 2.4b to refer to the righteous although few argue their case.12 Verse 4 itself, however, supports the traditional view when it contrasts the evil one of v. 4a with the just one of v. 4b. Consider i n c t a pHHl in 15U ('his soul in him but the righteous by his/its faith[fulness]') in 2.4. The first two words end 2.4a and include two waw suffixes meaning 'his', which are commonly (although not universally) acknowledged to point to the wicked person of ch. I.13 To reach this antecedent, however, we must pass over other possible antecedents in 2.1-3, which include Habakkuk ( T in 2.1), the Lord (2.2), and the vision (2.2-3) because none of these would be said to have a soul which was not upright. However, the wicked one of 1.12-17, against whom Habakkuk complained and to whom he referred in the singular, is a good fit, the nearest reasonable antecedent. Verses 2.5-17

10. J. Gerald Janzen, 'Habakkuk 2:2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances', HTR 73 (1980), pp. 53-78 (55-57, quote on p. 57). Janzen cites (p. 55 n. 4) an article by Loewenstamm in Leshonenu as the source of some of his ideas. 11. Janzen, 'Recent Philological Advances', pp. 57-61. 12. E.g. James O.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 174; Moiss Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2nd edn, 2001), p. 165. Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, p. 44, points out that the interpretation 'their faith' of Hab. 2.4 in v. 8.2 of the Qumran commentary confirms the third person, as opposed to the first person, suffix. I would add here that the plural also rules out the possibility that the Qumran community (if it were uniform) read Hab. 2.4b as the faithfulness of God or of the vision. 13. P.J.M. Southwell, Note on Habakkuk ii.4', JTS19 NS (1968), pp. 614-17, for example, repoints the text to gain an antecedent within the verse.

224

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

verify this. Verse 5 labels 'proud' (TIT) the one whose 'soul' (BSD) is 'puffed up' (n^sr) 1 4 in v. 4. The text continues on to say that he enlarges 'his soul' (1IZH) like Sheol and gathers all nations to himself (v. 5) to kill them (vv. 8, 10, 12, 17); thus 2.5-17 identifies the one puffed up in v. 4 with the one slaying the nations in 1.14-17. The last word of 2.4a, ('in him'), is separated from , the word with the suffix in question in 2.4b, by the one word ('but the righteous'). Although both begin with the preposition 3 and end with the suffix 1,1 would be reluctant to assume a formal parallel between and 1. However, if one were reading of the wicked and how his soul is puffed up in him and then the text turned to the righteous, one would expect the third person masculine singular suffix on the following word to refer to the righteous person rather than someone or something else, and pHS is the nearest reasonable antecedent. The context, which con tains both the ideas of the faithfulness of the vision and of the call to believe it ('wait for it') in v. 3, would need to give the reader a reason to skip over the nearer and, in the context of 2.4a, more obvious choice of p*HH and choose ] in 2.3 as the antecedent. In other words, if the antecedent is nothing further need be said; but if it is God or the vision, Habakkuk must point the reader in that direction. Yet he does not. Paul also, by omitting the pronoun, defaults to the understanding of the MThe, too, if TTGTIS does not belong to the righteous, would need to indicate that fact. 310 in its Context The word 310 has several meanings in the Old Testament outside Hab. 2.4: faithfulness (2 Kgs 12.15), truth (Jer. 7.28), office of trust (1 Chron. 9.31), and steadiness (Exod. 17.12). And yet, it is generally agreed that 'faith' is not among them. In Hab. 2.4, however, scholars understand H D I D K to mean faithfulness, faith, or a combination of the two. Moiss Silva says that means ' "steadiness, faithfulness"thus implying obedience to the law', but also that for Habakkuk and for Paul
14. Haak, Habakkuk, p. 57, says there is no consensus on the meaning of n^2i?. However, see J.A. Emerton's and P.J.M. Southwell's support for 'is puffed up': John A. Emerton, 'Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk 11.4-5% JTS2S (1977), pp. 1-18 (5); Southwell, 'Note on Habakkuk ii.4', p. 616. Andersen, Habakkuk, pp. 208-209, also acknowledges this traditional meaning of the word as the best that can be done with the MT, although he does not see it as making good sense in the context.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

225

'there was no such dichotomy between faith and faithfulness'.15 Paul, however, not only saw but argued for the dichotomy between faith and the faithfulness which is obedience to the law (e.g. Gal. 2.16). To have a single term represent multiple concepts was common in Greek and Hebrew, just as it is in languages today. The people understood this: they knew that Moses' hands had steadiness and not faith or truth when he raised them in battle. James Barr sees H31DK as 'faith' in Hab. 2.4. Because it came to mean 'faith' in Late Hebrew, he posits that this meaning may have developed in the late Judaistic period. He suggests, for example, that 'faith' is the more likely meaning for TIQK than 'faithfulness' in lQpHab. 8.2-3 (^ 103 , 'and their faith in the righteous Teacher'), because D, which denotes the object of the hiphil pKH ('believe') denotes the object of 310 in that passage.16 But there are differences of opinion.17 B.B. Warfield finds that the context 'demand[s]' 'faith' as the meaning of rraiK in Hab. 2.4 because it contrasts THEN with the self-sufficiency of the arrogant.18 This may be, but a contrast between the outlook of the arrogant and the righteous may not be the point. Verse 4 may simply say that the righteous will escape the arrogant by their HDIK, in which case one could still argue for a meaning of either 'faith' or 'faithfulness'.

15. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, p. 165. Others who see Habakkuk using both meanings are F.F. Bruce, 'Habakkuk', in Thomas E. McComiskey (ed.), Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, ahum, and Habakkuk (The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Com mentary, vol. 2 of 3; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), pp. 831-96 (860); Joseph B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations (London: Macmillan, 8th edn, 1884), pp. 154-55; Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), pp. 221-22. 16. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 201-202. 17. James Charlesworth, for example, translates the phrase 'and their fidelity to the Righteous Teacher'. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (6 vols.; Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), VI, p. 175. After examining each known occurrence of 31 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I would hesitate to say without more work that any one of them proves conclusively that came to mean 'faith' before the Talmudic era. 18. B.B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. Samuel G. Craig; Phila delphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1952), p. 431.

226

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

Most scholars today understand THEN in Hab. 2.4 to mean faithful ness.19 James Scott defends this view on the grounds that H D I Q N does not 20 carry the meaning 'faith' in the Old Testament. His defense would be unquestioned except for the well-recognized fact that at some point in Hebrew usage, 310 did take on the meaning 'faith'. It is possible to pursue this line of inquiry further. If means 'faithfulness' in Hab. 2.4, then faithfulness to do what? Some who take it to mean the faith fulness of the righteous person understand it as faithfulness to keep the law.21 The context, however, does not mention the law. Yet, whenever the Old Testament uses mi O N to refer to the faithfulness of people, the context identifies the sphere in which they are faithful. For example, 1 Chronicles 9 uses miQN with 2 three times to mean an 'office of trust'. In 9.22, the office is that of gatekeeper; in 9.26, it is the charge of the chambers and treasures in the house of God; in 9.31 it is the charge of the baking.22 The other passages which use miQN with . in Kings and Chronicles also refer to faithfulness in doing a specific task. The task is repairing the temple in 2 Kgs 12.16 (v. 15 Eng.), judging disputes properly in 2 Chron. 19.9, bringing in contributions in 2 Chron. 31.12, distributing portions of offerings in 2 Chron. 31.15, and repairing the temple in 2 Chron. 34.12. In Exod. 17.12, Moses' hands had , that is, steadiness, when Aaron and Hur supported them. In 1 Sam. 26.23, David said that the Lord would repay people for their faithfulness. Although this is a general principle, David specifically applies it to his refusal to harm the Lord's anointed. In Ps. 37.3-5, the psalmist gives several injunctions, each of a general naturefor example, trust in the
19. E.g. C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; reprinted with corrections; ICC, 32; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980), I, p. 100; C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Moffatt New Testament Commentary; London: Collins, 1959), p. 41; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 'The Letter to the Romans', in Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: Chapman, 2nd edn, 1989), pp. 830-68 (834-35). 20. James M. Scott, New Approach to Habakkuk 2:4-5a\ FT35 (1985), pp. 33040 (337). 21. E.g. J. Koenig, 'Zum Verstndnis von Habakuk 2,4-5 \ ZDMG 1 ( 1969), pp. 291 95 (294); Dieter Lhrmann, 'Pistis im Judentum', ZNW 64 (1973), pp. 2-38 (35); J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 312; Silva, Interpreting Galatians, p. 165. 22. Those who dispute the meaning 'office of trust' and opt for 'faithfulness' in 1 Chron. 9 will still recognize that the faithfulness is in doing a specified task.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

227

Lord, delight in him, dwell in the land, do good. Therefore, it is clear in the context that 'feed on faithfulness' ( \) in 37.3 is intended to have a general meaning. Proverbs 28.20 contrasts a faithful person with one who hastens to be rich, and the parallelism in the verse restricts faithfulness to the realm of business dealings. Finally, Isa. 59.4 says that no one sues righteously or pleads with (D) . In this context, there fore, ]10 speaks of honesty in taking legal action. The only other passages that relater31QKto human beings are those in which it means 'truth': Prov. 12.17, 22; Jer. 5.1-3; 7.28; and 9.2 (v. 3 Eng.). The immediate context determines the application of each instance of TlftK that refers to the faithfulness of human beings. Therefore, for TlftK to point to the law in Hab. 2.4 is hardly likely because the context does not speak of the law. The single application of faithfulness demanded in the context is the command to Habakkuk to 'wait' () for the vision.23 And when v. 2 speaks of others reading the words of the vision, it is evident that the Lord does not intend the vision for Habakkuk alone. Others are to hear the message, and the righteous, like Habakkuk, are to exercise 31 by waiting for the fulfillment. Now people who wait for the vision wait because they believe it will come, and people who believe God's vision of freedom will wait expectantly for it. In this context, H D I K does not require action because Yahweh himself will bring salvation. It only requires faith in the certainty of the vision. This does not imply that the lexical meaning of 10 in Hab. 2.4 is 'faith', but it does mean that the lexical problem does not need to be solved to understand the text. Furthermore, it does imply that to quote Hab. 2.4 with the meaning 'faith' for TTIOTIS, as most scholars believe Paul does, does not change the original import of the verse.
23. Others who see 310 in Hab. 2.4 as referring to waiting include Alice Ogden Bellis, 'Habakkuk 2:4b: Intertextuality and Hermeneutics', in Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky (eds.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS, 8; Atlanta: Sociey of Biblical Literature, 2000), pp. 369-85 (376); Carl F. Keil and Friedrich Delitzsch, The Twelve Minor Prophets (trans. James Martin; 2 vols.; Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), II, p. 73; Michael A.S. Kyomya, 'The Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17' (ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991), p. 70; Bae Gil Lee, Developing Messianic Understanding of Habakkuk 2:3-5 in the New Testament in the Context of Early Jewish Writings' (ThD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997), p. 59; Wilhelm Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten (HKAT, 3.4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1903), p. 282; John W. Taylor, 'From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom', NTS 50 (2004), pp. 337-48 (339).

228

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

Traditionally, however, New Testament exegetes have understood Paul to refer to faith in Christ when he quotes Habakkuk, a faith unfamiliar to the prophet. Did Paul, then, change the content of the faith? In Habakkuk, the content of faith is the vision of destruction of the wicked and deliverance of the righteous. Chapter 3 fills in some par ticulars, most notably that it is Yahweh himself who comes to rescue his people. Paul, however, recognizes the death of Christ as necessary to rescue God's people from the present evil age (Gal. 1.4). But although the death of Christ precedes Yahweh's coming, it does not pre-empt it; rather, is necessary for it (1 Cor. 15). Yahweh will yet come in the person of Christ to deliver his people. Paul does not replace Habakkuk's vision but supplies detail from later revelation.24 The Life of the Righteous The first question to settle concerning the word ('live') in Hab. 2.4 is its lexical meaning. Norman Young, for example, understands to speak of conduct when he says Hab. 2.4 'talks of a relationship lived out on the basis of faith', whereas Alice Ogden Bellis sees as survival 'in the sense of physically withstanding the national crisis brought on by the Babylonians'.25 BDB mHALOTboth side with Bellis. HALOTlists 'to be alive, to stay alive', 'to live by something' (i.e. to be alive by means of something), 'to revive, recover', and 'to return to life, revive' as possible meanings for the qal.26 Neither lists 'to behave' or 'to conduct life in a given manner' as an option. There may be questions about the use of IT in some passages, how ever. For example, in Gen. 17.18 Abraham asks that Ishmael might 'live' () before God. In v. 20, the Lord responds that he heard Abraham's petition and that he would bless Ishmael and multiply him so that he
24. This assumes that Habakkuk speaks of eschatological life, a view held by most exegetes and discussed in the following section. 25. Bellis, 'Habakkuk 2:4b', p. 373; Norman H. Young, 'Who's Cursedand Why? (Galatians 3:10-14)', JBLWl (1998), pp. 79-92 (89). For others who see in terms of behavior, see Patterson, Habakkuk, p. 214; Wallis, 'Translation of Romans 1:17', pp. 20, 22. For others who see in the sense of 'be alive', see Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 127; Hans C.C. Cavallin, 'The Righteous Shall Live by Faith: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation', StTh 32 (1978), pp. 33-43 (37); Michael H. Floyd, 'Prophecy and Writing in Habakkuk 2,1-5', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 462-81 (476); O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of ahum, Habakkuk, andZephaniah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 178. 26. See '' in HALOT, I, pp. 309-10. Similarly, '' in BDB, pp. 310-11.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

229

would become a great nation. Thus the Lord's answer deals not with Ishmael's behavior but with his possession of life. A request that Ishmael might 'walk ("]^) before the Lord' would have been directed to Ishmael rather than the Lord, according to the example in 17.1. In another example, Gen. 27.40, Isaac tells Esau that he will 'live' () by his sword. Does this mean that Esau would conduct his life by the sword or that his existence would depend upon his sword? Verse 39 answers by saying that Esau would dwell away from the fertility of the earth and the dew of heaven. In other words, the sword was necessary for Esau to live. Similarly, when Elijah tells a widow in 2 Kgs 4.7 that she and her two sons could live on their oil, he speaks of sustaining their lives because the oil was all they had to live on. The Lord tells Israel in Lev. 18.5 that if they will 'perform' ( 3 ? ) his statutes, they will 'live' () by them. If 'live by them' means 'walk in them', the text introduces a pointless redundancy. Instead, implies that the people will have life by keeping God's laws, as the chapter later indicates (vv. 26-29). This is evident also in some of the passages that cite Lev. 18.5, for example, Ezek. 20.13. Similarly, in Deut. 8.3 the Lord says that human beings do not live by bread alone. Deuteronomy 8.1 makes it clear that v. 3 speaks of being alive because it is telling them how they may live and multiply. Again when the people ask in Ezek. 33.10, 'How then can we live?', the context pinpoints survival as the issue (vv. 8, 9, 11). Leviticus 25.35-36 commands an Israelite to 'assist' (pTPf) a poor Israelite whose means fail so that the impoverished Israelite 'may live with you' ("[DI? ). Although one may be tempted by the English to understand that the poor Israelite dwells near or even in the same house as the one providing support, the fact that the person's means failed indi cates that his or her life is at risk. However, whether means 'be alive' or 'dwell', the behavior of the poor is not at issue. Similarly, in Lam. 4.20 Israel wished to 'live' () among the nations under the protection of the Lord's anointed. Here, too, the context contrasts the end (i.e. death) coming for the people (vv. 17-19) with their hope of life in the protection of their king (v. 20). In the 279 uses of the verb in the Old Testament outside Hab. 2.4,27 there are no examples where it means 'to behave' or 'to conduct life in a given manner'. The other uses of the word are either similar to
27. This is the number given by Accordance Bible software after omitting duplicate forms in text-critical notes within the text.

230

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

these or more obviously fall into the categories outlined in HALOT. The context of Habakkuk also supports the meaning 'be alive' rather than 'conduct life' because the prophet's concern was that the righteous were being slain (Hab. 1.13-17). The next thing to ask is 'Live how long?' or 'Live when?' Most scholars understand Habakkuk to speak of eschatological life.28 J.A. Sanders, on the other hand, says that Paul, in seeing the eschaton in Habakkuk's prophecy, saw more than Habakkuk spoke of.29 Habakkuk's use of apocalyptic metaphors and ideas points in the direction of the eschaton. In 2.14 he speaks of the earth being filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. In 3.3-15 he depicts the Lord's coming with bold images: Yahweh's radiance is like the sunlight (3.4); pestilence goes before him and plague after him (3.5); mountains are shattered and hills collapse (3.6); he cleaves the earth with rivers (3.9) and tramples nations (3.12). Yet Hebrew writers could be highly poetic when describing the past as well as the far future (e.g. Exod. 15.1-18). To draw conclusions about Habakkuk's prophecy from a closer examination of the text will require some basic assumptions. Habakkuk presents his prophecy as an oracle God gave him before the Chaldean invasion. My argument will take Habakkuk's prophecy as he presents it and assume in addition that the Lord knew when the Chaldeans would attack and when they would fall. For those who assume otherwise, my purpose is not to argue the point but to examine what Habakkuk claims and to deduce what follows from his claimswhether or not the conclusions were in the mind of Habakkuk. Paul himself took Habakkuk as a prophet of God, and the point of this study is to examine whether he understood Habakkuk on Habakkuk's terms. When he spoke with the Lord, Habakkuk feared that the Chaldeans would continue their slaughter (1.17), but the Lord assures him in 2.4b that there will be survivors.30 For the righteous Judahites, 'live' therefore implies life after the Chaldean invasion. The context foresees more than
28. E.g. Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, p. 127; Cavallin, 'Righteous Shall Live by Faith', p. 37; Robertson, Habakkuk, p. 183; Taylor, 'From Faith to Faith', p. 340. Few, however, argue for their position. 29. James A. Sanders, 'Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament', JR 39 (1959), pp. 232-44 (242). Fitzmyer, 'Habakkuk 2:3-4', p. 450, and Bellis, 'Habakkuk 2:4b', p. 373, also see life in Hab. 2.4 as non-eschatological. 30. Others who recognize that the Lord promised survival despite the invasion include Bellis, 'Habakkuk 2:4b', p. 373; Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 127; Robertson, Habakkuk, p. 178.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

231

surviving the initial invasion and dying in exile, however: the vision promises eventual freedom from the rampaging nation for both Habakkuk and the righteous who wait with him. Although the exact content of the vision is debated, scholars usually argue for 2.4-6 (or a part thereof), 2.6-20, or 3.3-15, each of which includes the fall of the Chaldeans (or more general enemies of God) and the deliverance of God's people.31 The fact that the Lord told Habakkuk to wait for the vision meant that he would see it fulfilledthat is, that he would see deliveranceand ch. 3 confirms this. When Habakkuk asks God in 3.2 to revive his works of old and when he reacts in fear to the vision of 3.3-15, he clearly indicates that the vision is more than a catalog of past events: the effect it will have on Habakkuk (esp. 3.19) gives it a future application. He fears because the day of distress is yet to come (3.16). It is important to note here that the time Habakkuk experiences trembling and rottenness in his bones in 3.16-17 is not the time that his feet are like hinds' feet walking on high places in 3.19. Habakkuk may exult in the bad times (3.18) knowing that good times are coming, but his feet are not treading the mountains at the same time that rottenness is entering his bones. The point is that Habakkuk himself will walk on high places after God delivers him and the rest of his people from their enemies (3.13-14). In other words, the one who was to wait for the vision, would see it fulfilled. If, as 2.1-4 suggests, the people were to wait for the vision, it is because they, like Habakkuk, would see it fulfilled. Now Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah in 586 BCE, and the Medo-Persians entered Babylon and killed Belshazzar in 539 BCE. Therefore Habakkuk and the righteous who wait with him, wait at least forty-seven years for the vision. Aside from the improbable event that they were all quite young when they heard the prediction of 2.3, some of the righteous would have died before 539 BCE; and since they were to live to see the fulfillment of the vision, the life they would live must be resurrection life. The text thus speaks of the eschaton.32
31. Smith and Patterson see 2.4 as the vision. Cf. Patterson, Habakkuk, p. 214; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC, 32; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), p. 107. Robertson, Habakkuk, pp. 169,173-74, sees it in 2.4-5. Floyd, 'Prophecy in Hab 2,1-5', p. 472 and n. 34, sees it in 2.4-20. Andersen, Habakkuk, pp. 204, 207, sees it in 2.6-20, but acknowledges ch. 3 as a possibility. 32. An eschatological interpretation contradicts the translations of Hab. 2.4 given by Horst and Notscher, who see the righteous as one who 'remains alive' (bleibt leben)

232

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

Therefore, the enemy has become eschatological. The Chaldeans, the original enemy, were mentioned by name only in 1.6. The Lord depicts them in 1.6-11 mocking at kings and laughing at fortresses. They are violent and feared. They seize dwellings, capture cities, and credit it all to their god. Habakkuk in his reply (1.12-17) picks up on this image to complain about the Chaldeans. He focuses on their violence in capturing and slaying, but includes their rejoicing in their deeds and offering sacrifice to their strength. The Lord's next speech continues in the same vein, describing the murders (1.17; 2.8, 10, 12), the pride (1.10; 2.4-5), and the idolatry (1.11, 17; 2.18-20). Although there is continuity from speech to speech, the prophecy does not prevent a change or expansion of the enemy. The righteous will live when the greater enemy falls. Paul then sees the eschaton in Habakkuk, because whether or not Habakkuk saw it, that is what follows from his prophecy. The Identity of the Righteous Habakkuk expresses his concern for the fate of the righteous in both of his complaint speeches. In 1.4, he says that the law is ignored and justice is never upheld because the wicked surround the righteous. His reference to the law being ignored indicates that his complaint is against his countrymen: he would not have expected Gentiles to keep the law. If the reference to justice implies a courtroom scene, then the righteous are the ones in the right in a particular case, not necessarily those righteous before the Lord. In either case, the Lord omits mention of them in his reply. Habakkuk, however, is not finished with them and brings them up again in his second complaint. In 1.13, he says that the wicked swallow up the 'righteous' (LXX and Syriac) or 'those more righteous than they' (MT). Resolving this text-critical problem is beyond the scope of the present study. Whether Habakkuk speaks of the righteous in 1.13 in a relative sense or not will not ultimately determine the meaning of p*HH in 2.4. The point for our purposes is that in 1.13 they are Gentiles. This can be verified in the immediate context. First of all, Habakkuk was responding in 1.12-17 to the Lord's call to look among the nations
through faith or faithfulness. Cf. Friedrich Horst, 'Habakkuk', in Die Zwlf Kleinen Propheten (HAT, Erste Reihe, 14; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1938), pp. 167-82 (174); Friedrich Ntscher, Zwlfprophetenbuch: Oder Kleine Propheten (Die Heilige Schrift in Deutscher bersetzung, Echter-Bibel. Das Alte Testament; Wrzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1948), p. 120. 'Will live' (wird leben) is better here.

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

233

(1.5). After speaking in general about God and his plan in 1.12-13, Habakkuk laments at the end of 1.13 the current situation he sees for the righteous before the Chaldeans conquer Judah. Thus by default these righteous are Gentiles. Second, there appears to be no change in subject between v. 14 and the end of v. 13. In v. 13 the wicked 'swallow' the righteous, and in v. 15 they fish for people with hook and netboth metaphors of wholesale capturing. The fishing analogy continues from v. 14 to v. 17, which then indicates a continuity in subject from the 'righteous' who are swallowed in v. 13 to the 'nations' who are slain in v. 17. In other words, despite Habakkuk's trust in the Lord to save Israel from extinction ('we shall not die' in 1.12), he sees the Chaldeans 'swallowing' (relatively?) righteous people from the nations (1.13, 17). In ch. 2 the Lord responds to Habakkuk's second complaint, and in 2.4 he specifically addresses the issue of the righteous: the righteous will live. The verses following 2.4 confirm that the Lord intends v. 4b to answer Habakkuk's concern. Verse 2.5 picks up the proud one from 2.4 and describes him gathering all nations and peoples (2.5) to kill them (2.10), just as Habakkuk had said in 1.17. Who are the righteous of 2.4? Since 'live' is eschatological, they are the people righteous before God and not simply those in the right on a single issue before a human court.33 But the text describes them further. Verse 2.5 says that the proud one gathers all nations and all peoples, and vv. 6-20 predict the response of these peoples to his fall. Note that the people are living after the proud one is defeatedthe taunt would hardly be in the mouths of a people currently oppressed. Note too that their words express faith that God would judge (2.16), faith that the earth would be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (2.14), and faith that God is over all (2.18-20). Note that they speak righteous words against sin, against idolatry, and for the Lord. In other words, these are the righteous of 2.4, who believed God would accomplish what he promised, and who live.34 They include Gentiles because they are from among all peoples and all nations (2.5), the very people of concern to

33. Although I have not determined whether the righteous in 1.4,13 are righteous in God's eyes or not, the Lord focuses on the former. 34. Since only the righteous have eschatological life and since the defeat of the enemy places the event in the eschaton, the people taunting the proud one must be the righteous of 2.4. For those convinced that "inDIKH means 'by its [the vision's] faithfulness', this conclusion should still follow.

234

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

Habakkuk in 1.17.35 Therefore their righteousness does not have its source in the law.36 Therefore, Paul, when he applies Hab. 2.4 to Gentiles in Rom. 1.17 and Gal. 3.11, is not extending its original application. The significance of this result reaches the pistis Christou debate in New Testament studies. Douglas Campbell understands Paul to read IKCUOS in the LXX of Hab. 2.4 as 'the Righteous One', that is, the Messiah, and states that this reading is a crux interpretum in Rom. 1.17 for TTGTIS as a subjective genitive (meaning 'faithfulness of Christ').37 Richard Hays defends this view by means of the LXX. The LXX translates ]1 ('vision', m. sg.) as opccois ('vision', f. sg.) in 2.2-3, but retains the masculine pronouns referring to it in 2.3. Therefore, instead of 'it' (the vision) coming, 'he' (a person) comes. Hays, with Heb. 10.37, adds the article to ('coming') in Hab. 2.3 (LXX) to read 'the Coming One'. 38 This fits the LXX and takes the Lord's coming in Habak kuk 3 as part of the vision. But Hays goes on to argue that 2.4 continues speaking of the Messiah, designating him now as the Righteous One.
35. Many exegetes believe Hab. 2.4 originally applied only to Israel; see, for exam ple, Bellis, 'Habakkuk 2:4b', p. 373; Matthew Black, Romans: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1989), p. 35; Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 125; Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 100; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, p. 282; Scott, 'New Approach', p. 335; Seifrid, 'Unrighteous by Faith', p. 119. Bruce, 'Habakkuk', p. 860, however, recognizes therighteousto include both Israelites and nonIsraelites. Andersen, Habakkuk, p. 203, observes that the small number of inscribed clay tablets found in Palestine, such as those referred to in 2.2, indicates that messages on clay tablets were used on the international much more than on the domestic scene. If Andersen is correct, it suggests that Habakkuk knew before he saw the vision that it was intended for both Jew and Gentile. The Old Testament gives cause for Israel to expect righteousness for Gentiles when it refers to a time when the Lord would call Egypt his people and accept the worship of Egypt and Assyria along with Israel (Isa. 19.19-25) and when it refers to nations which are called by the Lord's name (Amos 9.12; cf. Deut. 28.10). 36. Contra Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 125; Mria Eszenyei Szles, Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books of Habakkuk and Zephaniah (trans. George A. Knight, ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987), p. 31; Scott, 'New Approach', pp. 335-36; Silva, Interpreting Galatians, pp. 165-67. 37. Douglas A. Campbell, 'False Presuppositions in the Debate: A Response to Brian Dodd', JBL 116 (1997), pp. 713-19 (714, 719). In Rom. 1.17 Paul quotes Hab. 2.4b. If the righteous one is the Messiah, then \\ refers to Christ's own faith or faithfulness and gives the exegetes grounds to interpret -n in Rom. 3.22, 26 as Christ's faith/faithfulness. 38. Richard B. Hays, 'Apocalyptic Hermeneutics: Habakkuk Proclaims "The Right eous One"', in his The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 119-42 (132).

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

235

Although this may work within 2.3-4 of the LXXthe Coming One 'will not shrink back but will live ' 39 the inclusion of Gentiles among the righteous in 2.5-20 argues against it in the LXX, just as it did in the MT. This may explain why Heb. 10.37-38 and lQpHab both see Hab. 2.4 as non-messianic.40 Hays stresses the importance of the original context of Hab. 2.4 to Paul when he faults Paul's interpreters for 'hav[ing] been surprisingly content to assume that Paul employs the passage as a proof text with complete disregard for its original setting in Habakkuk's prophecy'.41 Because Gentile righteousness is prominent in both Hab. 2.4 and the context of Paul's citations, I would suggest that Paul was well aware of Habakkuk's application of 2.4b to Gentiles and, therefore, that he did not see the righteous one of Hab. 2.4 as the Messiah. Justification by Faith or Life by Faith? Most scholars associate 2 in Hab. 2.4 with rather than with pHH, but few defend their position.42 D. Moody Smith simply observes that the
39. Hays, 'Apocalyptic Hermeneutics', p. 132. Hays, to his credit, acknowledges that his arguments are not entirely compelling (p. 140). 40. As noted by Hays, 'Apocalyptic Hermeneutics', p. 133. 41. Hays, 'Apocalyptic Hermeneutics', pp. 137-38. 42. E.g. Bruce, 'Habakkuk', pp. 860-61; William S. La Sor, 'Interpretation and Infallibility: Lessons from the Dead Sea Scrolls', in Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (Homage Series, 10; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. 123-37 (131); Sanders, 'Habakkuk in Qumran', p. 233; Scott, 'New Approach', p. 336; Mark A. Seifrid, 'Paul's Use of Righteousness Language against its Hellenistic Background', in D.A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.; WUNT, 181; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), II, pp. 39-74 (54); D. Moody Smith Jr, ', in Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (eds.), Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark (Studies and Documents, 29; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), pp. 13-25 (13); Hans Wildberger, ' "Glauben" im Alten Testament', ZTK 65 (1968), pp. 129-59 (139). Laetsch, on the other hand, refers to the just in 2.4 as 'the righteous by faith, believing God's vision', adding that they will 'live by their faith'. Thus he links IDDIQ^H to both the subject and the verb. Cf. Theodore F.K. Laetsch, Bible Commentary: The Minor Prophets (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1956), p. 332. Many, however, see righteous-by-faith as part of Paul's interpretation of Hab. 2.4, e.g. Bruce, 'Habakkuk', pp. 860-61; Otto Kuss, Der Rmerbrief (2 vols.; Regensburg: F. Pustet, 2ndedn, 1963), ,. 24; Martyn, Galatians, pp. 312-13; Peter T. O'Brien, 'Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?', in Carson, O'Brien, and Seifrid (eds.), Justification and

236

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

prepositional phrase 'would ordinarily be construed with the verb' and cites the LXX and Targum Jonathan as confirmation, with lQpHab as probable confirmation, of the traditional view.43 Prepositions do modify verbs more often than nouns, but they commonly modify nouns, as 3 D^QUS ('times in the year') in Exod. 23.17,17M3 70 ('hair in the diseased spot') in Lev. 13.3, ^ ' ('women in the tent') in Judg. 5.24, j m bui ('brook by the way') in Ps. 110.7, 5 ('the fairest among women') in Song 1.8, , , . . . ('indictment...against the nations') in Jer. 25.31, 3 ('princess among the provinces') in Lam. 1.1, and ]" ('length of life') in Dan. 7.12 attest, so the issue is not hereby resolved. R.C.H. Lenski notes that the tiphcha under inDIOND indicates that the phrase 'bears the emphasis because it is to be construed with the verb'.44 However, the tiphcha and other accents indicate the Masoretes' inter pretation and therefore may still be open to question. Robertson uses a grammatical argument to confirm the opinion of the Masoretes. He sees Hab. 2.4b conforming to the common pattern of the Hebrew compound sentence as described in GKC.45 This structure con sists of a subject followed by an independent clause, which may include a retrospective suffix referring back to the subject, which is followed then by a verbal clause. Robertson gives some examples, including Neh. 1.3, 'The Lordin the storm (is) his way', and Gen. 34.8, 'My son Shechemhis soul longs for your daughter'. He maintains that since Hab. 2.4b follows the pattern given in GKC, it should be rendered, 'But the justifiedby his steadfast trust he shall live'.46 The question, however, is whether each construction which fits the form specified by Robertson is a compound sentence with the property that the preposi tional phrase modifies the verb. Here Lev. 25.48 serves as a counter example: ] ^ "NIK ('one from among his brothers may redeem
Variegated Nomism, II, pp. 248-96 (281); Sanders, 'Habakkuk in Qumran', p. 233; Francis Watson, 'By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solu tion', in The Faith of Jesus Christ (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2010); Young, 'Who's Cursed?', p. 89. 43. Smith Jr, ', pp. 13-15 (13). 44. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Minnea polis: Augsburg, 1961), pp. 86-87. Similarly, Keil and Delitzsch, Minor Prophets, II, p. 73; Patterson, Habakkuk, p. 178; Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, p. 177. 45. GKC, pp. 450-51, 457-58. 46. Robertson, Habakkuk, p. 177 and n. 6 (italics his).

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

237

him'). It conforms to the pattern of Hab. 2.4b in that it begins with an adjective as subject followed by a phrase consisting of a preposition, a noun, and a suffix that refers back to the subject. Then comes the verb. Leviticus 25.48, unlike Hab. 2.4, adds a suffix which acts as a direct object; but Robertson cites Gen. 34.8, which has a direct object as well. In the Leviticus example, however, the prepositional phrase modifies the noun rather than the verb. Therefore, a compound sentence may follow a particular form, but a sentence that follows the same basic form will not necessarily be a compound sentence with the properties of those in GKC. Are there, however, norms of Hebrew syntax that would rule out placing mDIQND with either or ? The preposition D is used in the Old Testament to modify . In Gen. 47.28, Jacob lived in the land of Egypt. In Lev. 18.5, one who keeps God's statutes will live by them. In 2 Kgs 4.7, the widow would live by the rest of the oil. In Ezek. 33.12, the righteous is not able to live by his righteousness in the day that he sins. In each of these cases 'live' is , and 'by' or 'in' is H.47 When functions as a substantive, I find only one example in the MT where it is modified at all, whether by a preposition or an adjective; and that sentence is questionable because of a text-critical problem.48 Habakkuk 1.13b speaks of the occasion 'when the wicked swallows (the one) more righteous than he' (13D pHH VOI I ^ M ?)).49 The LXX and Syriac omit the phrase 'more than he' (1DQ in the MT). Most translators follow the MT. F.F. Bruce acknowledges that the LXX and Syriac differ from the MT without further comment.50 William Ward says that the idea of the LXX is original, and 13QD was added because 'it was not thought that one fully righteous could be swallowed up by the wicked' .51 Andersen notes that 1D0 weakens the impact of 1.13, but he takes the stand that the idea 'more righteous than he' is implied whether or not it is
47. Other examples include Neh. 9.29; Pss. 33.19; 119.37,40,93; Ezek. 18.22; 20.11, 13, 21, 25; Lam. 4.20; and Hab. 3.2. 48. Accordance Bible software 7.0.3 brings up 206 instances of pn"IH in the Old Testament. For examples of pH modified when it functions as an adjective, see Gen. 6.9; 7.1; Deut. 4.8; Ps. 145.17; Job 32.1; and Dan. 9.14. 49. One verse in which is used as a substantive should also be dealt with, however. Gen. 18.24 speaks of the possibility that 'there are fifty righteous within the city' (0 "[ DpHH t r r a n VF). Here 'within the city' modifies the verb, as the verb 'find' makes clear in a similar expression in v. 26. The Lord would see whether he would find in the city fifty righteous. 50. Bruce, 'Habakkuk', p. 853. 51. Ward,'Habakkuk', p. 11.

238

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.2 (2009)

expressed.52 Solving this text-critical problem in 1.13 is beyond the scope of this essay, but the solution will either give evidence for the traditional view or show again the difficulty in making a solid case one way or the other. If, however, the righteous are righteous in the eyes of the Lord and if living means possessing eschatological life, as argued above, then whether 'by' modifies 'righteous' or 'will live' is moot. One who is righteous will certainly possess eschatological life, and no one will have eschatological life without being righteous. Therefore, whatever places people in the category of the righteous places them in the category of those to have eschatological life, and vice versa. So then, by faith one gains both righteousness and eternal life.53 If H modifies pn"TH, the focus of Hab. 2.4b is on who livesthe righteous by faith, that is, the ones righteous in God's sight as opposed to the relatively righteous. If 3 modifies , the focus is on how the righteous gain lifeby their faith. Paul recognized the equivalence of being righteous and of having eternal life (e.g. Gal. 3.21) and could, therefore, properly use the quote to support either righteousness by faith or life by faith. Conclusion The context of Habakkuk rules out 3 as faithfulness to the law in 2.4b, rules out Messiah as the referent of b IKCXIOS in the LXX, rules out a mere temporal idea in , and all but requires to be that of the righteous. In short, the context disputes various views held today on Hab. 2.4. If, however, Hab. 2.4 is the Old Testament text for Paul, how far off was his interpretation? Habakkuk begins by interceding for the righteous in Judah when he sees the lawlessness in his country and then for the righteous being slain by the Chaldeans when he looks among the nations. Although it is unclear whether or not the righteous in ch. 1 are simply people who are better than their countrymen, the Lord answers Habak kuk with a vision of salvation of people from among all nations who are righteous before him. The certainty of the vision and the Lord's com mand to wait for it ensure that Habakkuk will see it fulfilled while the
52. Andersen, Habakkuk, pp. 183-84. 53. So also Klaus Seybold, 'Habakuk 2,4b und sein Kontext', in Siegfried Kreuzer and Kurt Lthi (eds.), Zur Aktualitt des Alten Testaments: Festschrift fr Georg Sauer zum 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main/New York: P. Lang, 1992), pp. 99-107 (107).

HUNN Habakkuk 2.4b in its Context

239

length of the wait points to the fulfillment as eschatological. In line with this, the Lord does not say that the righteous will not die. Rather, he promises Habakkuk that they, too, will live by their faith in the Lord's salvation, that is, by waiting for the vision.54 When Paul, therefore, applies Hab. 2.4 to both Jews and Gentiles because they receive eternal life by faith apart from the law, he remains squarely within the framework of Habakkuk.

54. Or, equivalently but less likely, the Lord assures Habakkuk that people righteous before God, i.e. righteous by their faith, would in fact live.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.